From the Imperial College of London and the “doom is always just a few years away” department comes this snoozer. – Anthony
Without rapid carbon dioxide emission reductions, the world has a 50% chance of locking in 1.5°C of warming before 2030, according to a study led by Imperial College London researchers.
The study, published today in Nature Climate Change, is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the global carbon budget. The carbon budget is an estimate of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that can be emitted while keeping global warming below certain temperature limits.
The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The remaining carbon budget is commonly used to assess global progress against these targets.
The new study estimates that for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, there are less than 250 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide left in the global carbon budget.
The researchers warn that if carbon dioxide emissions remain at 2022 levels of about 40 gigatonnes per year, the carbon budget will be exhausted by around 2029, committing the world to warming of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
The finding means the budget is less than previously calculated and has approximately halved since 2020 due to the continued increase of global greenhouse gas emissions, caused primarily from the burning of fossil fuels as well as an improved estimate of the cooling effect of aerosols, which are decreasing globally due to measures to improve air quality and reduce emissions.
Dr Robin Lamboll, research fellow at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, and the lead author of the study, said: “Our finding confirms what we already know – we’re not doing nearly enough to keep warming below 1.5°C.
“The remaining budget is now so small that minor changes in our understanding of the world can result in large proportional changes to the budget. However, estimates point to less than a decade of emissions at current levels.
“The lack of progress on emissions reduction means that we can be ever more certain that the window for keeping warming to safe levels is rapidly closing.”
Dr Joeri Rogelj, Director of Research at the Grantham Institute and Professor of Climate Science & Policy at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London, said: “This carbon budget update is both expected and fully consistent with the latest UN Climate Report.
“That report from 2021 already highlighted that there was a one in three chance that the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C could be as small as our study now reports.
“This shows the importance of not simply looking at central estimates, but also considering the uncertainty surrounding them.”
The study also found that the carbon budget for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 2°C is approximately 1,200 gigatonnes, meaning that if carbon dioxide emissions continue at current levels, the central 2°C budget will be exhausted by 2046.
There has been much uncertainty in calculating the remaining carbon budget, due to the influence of other factors, including warming from gasses other than carbon dioxide and the ongoing effects of emissions that are not accounted for in models.
The new research used an updated dataset and improved climate modelling compared to other recent estimates, published in June, characterising these uncertainties and increasing confidence around the remaining carbon budget estimates.
The strengthened methodology also gave new insights into the importance of the potential responses of the climate system to achieving net zero.
‘Net zero’ refers to achieving an overall balance between global emissions produced and emissions removed from the atmosphere.
According to the modelling results in the study, there are still large uncertainties in the way various parts of the climate system will respond in the years just before net zero is achieved.
It is possible that the climate will continue warming due to effects such as melting ice, the release of methane, and changes in ocean circulation.
However, carbon sinks such as increased vegetation growth could also absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide leading to a cooling of global temperatures before net zero is achieved.
Dr Lamboll says these uncertainties further highlight the urgent need to rapidly cut emissions. “At this stage, our best guess is that the opposing warming and cooling will approximately cancel each other out after we reach net zero.
“However, it’s only when we only when we cut emissions and get closer to net zero that we will be able to see what the longer-term heating and cooling adjustments will look like.
“Every fraction of a degree of warming will make life harder for people and ecosystems. This study is yet another warning from the scientific community. Now it is up to governments to act.”
JOURNAL
Nature Climate Change
‘….according to a study led by Imperial College London researchers.’
Is this the same Imperial College whose researcher(s) built the COVID mortality ‘model’ that Fauci and Birx used to scare Trump into locking down the US?
Yes
Yes. Not that it matters; they’re all the same. It’s another tier added to the top-heavy edifice constructed of models on top of speculation on top of assertions based on other folks’ models, with only the smallest foundation of selected and manipulated observational data. It’s a very unstable edifice that needs to be propped up by more and more of these publicly funded, tendentious studies that endlessly recycle the same underlying assertions, and by an incessant torrent of propaganda from the media, and by decades of indoctrination in educational institutions at all levels from kindergarten to post-graduate, and by the pronouncements of our posturing politicians who think they’re being clever.
Like all unstable edifices, it will eventually collapse under its own weight. I would like to think that there will be some sort of civil society remaining after it does collapse.
Things are just now starting to unravel as the policies based on this edifice are starting to hurt regular people, and their real costs begin to emerge from the fog of obfuscation. Here’s an opinion piece about a new development at home in Canada that gives me some modest encouragement:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/carbon-tax-collapsing-and-could-take-trudeau-down
(story tip?)
Yes, just another very unscientific, biased money grab
Let’s not talk about the vaccines , hey 😉
Scandal: Leaked Pfizer Supply Agreement Shows EU Was Fully Aware Vaccine Was Unsafe (notrickszone.com)
Trump didn’t lock down the U.S.
Trump gave State governors the responsibility for handling what happened in their States. Some governors imposed lockdowns, some didn’t.
My State, Oklahoma, had no state-wide mandates of any kind, as far as masks or travel was concerned.
Oklahoma didn’t lock down during the two weeks to bend the curve period? Good for you.
Here in neighboring Missouri, 2 weeks became 6 weeks. Us ignorant rednecks in the boondocks didn’t lock down again and didn’t have any county or city mask mandates. That lead to a record tourist season.
They are the very model of modern major modellers and no prizes for guessing the tune.
No prizes? How about reduced pie rates?
A very general model of modern major modellers ?
Unfair comment. By the end of March, 2020 Trump was explicitly opposed to lockdowns. Perhaps all will remember his using the phrase, “The cure shouldn’t be worse than the disease when talking about lockdowns.
The ani-Trump slander in the covid era included claims that he recommended injecting bleach. The true history is that Trump was advised about a number of ways that the covid virus could be killed outside the body, including various chemicals such as common bleach and UV light.
Trump, not a scientist, nor pretending to be, asked the reasonable question whether medicines could be developed from this knowledge.
Trump haters went to town and lied about Trump’s comments and questions, which is no surprise, since Trump hatred has led many people to lie.
(Eg, read the whole transcript of his Charlottesville speech and seeTrump devoted a whole paragraph clarifying that he considered neoNazis evil and was not talking about them when he said there were “fine people” on both sides of the “tearing down statues” issue. Joe Biden to this day lies about that Trump speech).
After Trump caught COVID-19 himself and had to be airlifted to a hospital he became more serious about COVID-19.
I agree with you and Tom H, above. However, while it’s certainly unreasonable to expect leaders to be experts on everything, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to ask questions. To wit, Trump should have inquired about Ferguson’s track record at Imperial, which would have revealed that the former had a decades-long record of vastly overstating previous ‘pandemics’. At the very least, this would have defanged Fauci and Birx long enough for less partisan experts to weigh in on how best to respond to COVID.
People panicked. Trump opened Pandora’s box by letting Fauci, the CDC, Big Pharma and the media run the show. He bears more than a little responsibility for the havoc our Covid policy inflicted on the US.
Yes, he was lied to and accepted, under the influence of swamp creature advisors, the opinions of Fauci and other crooks.
None of those who were in power at CDC and elsewhere who directly benefited from their manipulation of the “truth” have paid ANY price for the damage they did.
“The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature increase to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.”
The alarmists ALWAYS use this language – which is of course only a partial truth.
When they refer to the “preindustrial temperature”, they always mean the very cold temperature immediately preceding the industrial revolution.
The LIA appears to have been literally the coldest extended period during the entire Holocene.
The Holocene Climatic Optimum could also be used as the “preindustrial temperature” for purposes of comparison. Somehow they never pick the ripe cherries, only the bitter cherries.
There is zero instrumental temperature data proving that global average temperature varied before the first instrumental temperature data was recorded.
The Central England Temperature Data series goes back to 1659. It shows that temperatures varied as much as today prior to the LIA. Global temperature data is an artificially created boondoggle.
There is zero evidence that boondoggles doggled before boons were first caught doggling.
Kevin was just joking around – but the temperature series is a joke when trying to use it to understand and model something as complicated as the world’s climate.
Pretend it’s something basic like the classic modeling exercise of a metal rod, chilled at one end with ice and heated on the other end with a flame of known BTUs or Joules. If you wanted to run live experiment in order to generate the data needed to test the computer model of the thermodynamics, wouldn’t you want to have at least 10 temperature probes down the length of the rod (30 to 100 cm long) and take temp readings every second in order to get a good profile spacially and temporally?
Now look at the whole planet and we want to model not only conductive but radiative and convective heat transfer, and the surface has a wide range of ‘materials’ all with different heat properties. I wouldn’t feel happy with a model of the Earth unless I had a million or more cells, and that would mean I had a million or more thermometers, measured every minute or hour, to compare to.
Or at least one for every degree square, which would still mean almost 130,000 stations measuring every hour.
How is one supposed model the climate when only looking at max/min data for stations that are mostly in the US, and a sizeable number in Australia, Canada, Brazil and India – and most of those would be at unsuitable locations like airports, military bases and such?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locations-of-the-1735-surface-weather-stations-across-Canada-with-a-Needs-Index-map-in_fig1_324041502
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-number-of-weather-stations-per-country-or-territory-contained-in-the-GHCN-Daily_fig4_326343778
duh… like, it NEVER varied? And when the FIRST instrumental temp data was recorded, was it worldwide and done with scientifically desireable standards? How often was it just some dude taking a quick look way back in the stone age of 1850?
Try reading the statement again. All he’s saying is that there is no instrumental record prior to the start of the instrumental record.
Sounds to me like he’s saying there’s no proof- with instrumental record- that the temperature varied- implying he thinks it didn’t vary- meaning there were not the very warm periods skeptics say.
I don’t read it that way.
I think people didn’t realize that you were being clever.
No instrument data before there was instrument data? Whaaa?!!!!
Correct – of course. The evidence is not from instrumental temperature recordings but from other sources.
They are a people of sour grapes.
I think we could go farther than post-Wisconsin glaciation temperatures. By the abundance of life, proliferation, and their size indicating how well they ate, a case can be made that the Cambrian and the Jurassic temperatures were ‘climate optimum’ for life on this planet. Man is not the only one here; what right does this one species have to claim what climate is the correct one and what everything else should adapt to or perish?–and that we have a right to control it?
“
ManMichael Mann is not the only one here; what right doesthis one specieshe have to claim what climate is the correct one and what everything else should adapt to or perish?–and thatwehehavehas a right to control it?”fixed it 🙂
Exactly – the world was sea to sea rain forest during the Jurassic and/or Cretaceous periods (probably some exaggeration there admittedly), a super bio diverse and dense time, much more healthy then our period (healthy for the dinosaurs and insects but not for us) and it was about 10°C warmer and CO2 was at minimum 1500ppm, and even 2500ppm at times.
Basically a eco-scientist’s nightmare but warmer is better for the planet.
Notice how they are starting to mention the 2°C target again? It was replaced a few years ago with 1.5 to frighten the useful idiots into action but now that we’ve really already passed the 1.5°C barrier without any real problems, I think the old 2°C limit will be tossed around again with fists shaking and screams about the impending doom – and the 1.5°C will quietly disappear down the memory hole.
Story tip – article –
‘Biden’s Dream House’ infographic shows you the cost of climate compliance – American Thinker
Well, John Kerry and Al Gore and Barack Obama and Leonardo DiCaprio can afford those increases- they presume we can too. Me thinks the rich climatistas aren’t fully aware of the economics of the commoners. After all, they live in mansions and fly around in private jets- hardly ever seeing the lesser beings.
“Oh Noes! Window to avoid 1.5°C of warming will close before 2030 if emissions are not reduced”
Were these terrifying windows open or closed during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods? Were they open or closed during the Holocene Climate Optimum? I am wondering how humans managed to survive such horrifying warm times. After all, we are all still here, aren’t we?
Inquiring minds want to know.
There have been 5 warm periods in the 5K or so years since the end of the Holocene Optimum.
The Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern.
Each warm period has been a little bit cooler than the previous, as has the cool period between them.
The time span between the end of the optimum as well as between each of the warm periods is right around 1000 years. This holds true for the gap between the Medieval and Modern warm periods.
The consistency of this gap does not prove that the Modern warm period is just a continuation of this series, however a pattern that has repeated 4 times, is likely to repeat a 5th.
Lucky for us, perhaps the next time it drops, the 5th time, it won’t drop quite as much, thanks to that wonderful plant food, CO2.
Suppose the window closes at 3:30pm GMT on 23 Mar 2029. Would anyone notice?
I seriously doubt it.
Whatever. I think I’ll take me chances, mate, you can keep yer propaganda.
The same kinda faculty lounge academic types that are brainwashing, distorting, propagandizing and often end up in all our current radical left administrations in the western world.
But don’t worry leftists your blatant ignorant leftist clap trap has now rolled out the red carpet for every terrorist not currently targeting Israel to target all of us from with in our own countries. So doubt anybody left in the rubble of some smoldering city In the US or UK is going to be to concerned about “ oh climate change”
Let’s just see how bad things have to get before these idiots wake up and eject these people.
Unfortunately, the left is now firmly in control of the voting mechanisms.
As Stalin is reputed to have said, “It doesn’t matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.”
As Trump discovered!
We should consider the craziest of the climatistas as a kind of terrorist- as they try to terrorize us with visions of hell on Earth. And of course that’s no exaggeration as we have seen with Al Gore and Antonio Guterres et. al.
“Robin completed a PhD in the physics of solar cells at the University of Cambridge, modelling the behaviour of new designs of solar cells, and has an MSci in Natural Sciences from Cambridge. Robin has previously worked as a quantitative consultant and successfully represented the UK in multiple international poetry slams.”
Um….
“and successfully represented the UK in multiple international poetry slams.”
Huh? I’m going to go add “recreational soccer” to my engineering resume.
To be fair, from Her Twitter:
“Does this mean we’re all doomed? No, 1.5C isn’t a magic temperature where everyone dies. It’s around where you start to see climate damages across a wide range of ecosystems and human systems, but every 0.1C makes a difference. [Image: IPCC AR6 WG2]”
If I read that correctly, she has at least tried to define what 1.5C means. Now if the world is really in a 2023-or-too-late situation then, does that mean I may tune out the cause if the world chooses or-too-late?
If 1.5C is the point at which we can start seeing changes caused by warmer temperatures, does that mean that at 1.4C and lower, we can’t see any changes.
How does that impact those who are claiming that every storm, every drought, every fire, etc. was caused by CO2?
If it is up 1.5C one month and down the next, will we see changes? what might those changes be?
““Does this mean we’re all doomed? No, 1.5C isn’t a magic temperature where everyone dies. It’s around where you start to see climate damages across a wide range of ecosystems and human systems, but every 0.1C makes a difference”
Pure speculation. She couldn’t prove one bit of that. She claims she can detect a difference in the way the Earth’s climate behaves with just a tenth of a degree change. Does anyone believe this, other than her?
Typical Alarmist Climate Science: It’s speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions all the way down. One unsubstantiated claim after another.
Look out, she is a competitive poet and she’s primed to slam you.
I have the best reply evah! for her: Prove it. Prove what you claim is true.
She can’t do it. I’m not worried. 🙂
“This shows the importance of not simply looking at central estimates, but also considering the uncertainty surrounding them.”
The uncertainty of GCM projections of global surface air temperatures is huge.
Pat Frank is right about this.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
There is no assurance at all that CO2 emissions have anything to do with the reported warming trend or what happens next.
Nick Stokes refers to those who point to temperature measurement uncertainty as “uncertainty cranks”.
By the way, I got about 1.5 inches of snow last night near Detroit.
And another thing! did anyone catch that NOVA episode last night on PBS tv? It told the story of the Permian extinction event 252 M years ago, and of course C02 was the culprit, and naturally they did some preaching about CC (perfect opportunity). The way they present those episodes, with lots of comments from obviously progressive people about the evils of C02. The way they obsess about it is weird. And I bet none of those people have solar panels on the roof.
NOVA “Ancient Earth: INFERNO” Premieres Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9pm ET/8C
252 million years ago, the most devastating mass extinction of all time abruptly wiped out around 90% of all species on Earth. The culprits were the biggest volcanic eruptions the world has ever seen, emitting some 700 thousand cubic miles of magma and rock. Volcanic gases permeated the atmosphere and acidified the oceans while toxic gases destroyed the ozone layer, bathing the planet in destructive ultraviolet radiation. The event – now called “The Great Dying” – came close to wiping out all life on the planet. Follow scientists as they piece together geologic evidence from the deep past and clues from today’s ecosystems to discover how life made it through and evolved into the astonishing variety we see around us today.
I can tell you ( atleast here in the US) that most of these people do not have solar panels because I service their houses in all the upscale liberal communities around the DC swamp.
I also service the houses of the “ common folk” that now cannot afford to fix their furnaces thanks to all the inflation created by our current administration. Yet they go out and vote for these same people over and over again. Baffling is’nt it.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” –usually attributed to Einstein, though it may not actually be by him
Well, it is also the definition of stupidity, of which we seem to have quite a lot.
But free stuff!
“did anyone catch that NOVA episode last night on PBS tv”
I saw it. They hit on every climate change talking point. One unsubstantiated claim after another.
I thought about doing a detailed rebuttal of the NOVA program.
They claimed CO2 caused the great die-off of the Permian.
They said land temperatures were 120F to 140F.
They said the oceans were over 100F.
The program was a Tour de Force of climate change misinformation.
None of it verifiable. Arrogant words from “scientists” who know what happened 250-300 million years ago in great detail.
“None of it verifiable.”
Exactly.
Pure speculation being presented as established facts.
This is the essence of alarmist climate science.
What amazes and disturbs me is how they always want these things to have happened in an instant, eg. “the most devastating mass extinction of all time abruptly wiped out around 90% of all species on Earth”. My considered opinion is that the extinction actually took quite a long time – at least 35 minutes and possibly 100 million years[*]. That’s quite a lot of uncertainty, I know, but it’s a bit like the ECS range in the IPCC reports.
[*] The latter seems more likely, because if the extinction had been really abrupt then surely there would be no chickenosaur on the supermarket shelves today.
“My considered opinion is that the extinction actually took quite a long time – at least 35 minutes and possibly 100 million years[*]. That’s quite a lot of uncertainty, I know, but it’s a bit like the ECS range in the IPCC reports.”
That made me laugh. 🙂 So true.
When you take any action because you don’t know what is going to happen is the stupidest and most illogical justification for doing anything.
Gee! I have never seen that done before.
What’s so hard to grasp here? Look at the graph of temperature over the past 500 million years in this article–
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Stare intently at the right hand end and realize:
1.5C, oh horrors. -10C again last night, one of the warmer nights for the last 2 weeks, and I’m still waiting at 10:30 am for it to get warm enough at my age to go do something outside. I’ll sue anyone who prevents us for getting our share of any warming we’ve got coming–although as Mark Steyn would say ‘Hah!–good luck with that!’
I would _love_ an extra 5C right now.
Sure fire way to know that COP28 is fast approaching. Happens every year.
The “global carbon budget” sounds like the stupidest thing of all the very stupid things we’ve been asked to take on board. How on earth do they know what that amount would be, if there even were such a thing as a cap to the amount of CO2 we have left to emit?
And why, with all their many models, does the deadline always remain the same—2030? This is such a giveaway that it’s all a big scam.
Do you have a list of the stupidest things? Or should that be “stoopidest” things? Spend any time on the interweb and it’s non stop stupid and stupider.
I suggest unplugging from the grid and unstoppering a good whiskey.
“A good whiskey.”
Is there such a thing?
Whisky yes, but whiskey?
Ok, Ok, I’ll gert my coat myself.
Get not gert.
Grrrr!
See what drinking that whisky does to you OSD?
On the other hand, I can drink a few nips of Bushmills Black whiskey while I’m doing my tax returns.
(Mind you, I could be robbing myself blind and not realise it) 🙁
Smashing. Bring it on and let’s have far fewer deaths due to cold weather at the possible expense of a couple of extra warm weather deaths (or just hydrate properly)
“the world has a 50% chance of locking in 1.5°C of warming before 2030,”
And a 50% chance it won’t.
And a 100% chance that nothing notable will happen even if it does.
Lock it in- all we gotta do is destroy our economies and much of our population. No problemo.
Either way it won’t effect anything
If I claim there’s a 50% chance the worlds ocean will turn into Coka Cola does that mean there’s a 50% chance they won’t?
Ho ridiculous a claim to make. There just isn’t enough evidence to say things like that.
Claiming a 50% chance is equivalent of saying “we have no idea”. Someone said “all odds are 50/50, either a thing will happen or it won’t”. That was supposed to be a joke.
Imperial College just isn’t what it used to be. Sigh.
You get what you pay for and the left paid well for this type of rubbish.
It’s what happens to any institute once government gets involved.
yuh, back when the UK and an empire- tougher and smarter people in academia
And far fewer universities and far fewer academics. Big expansion in numbers = big dilution of real talent.
You could wipe the UK off the face of the earth and the change to CO2 emissions would be virtually undetectable. Until these spineless jellyfish are willing to stand in front of China and India and demand they reduce their emissions they can pound sand.
And therein lies the danger. The Branden regime in the US has signaled a willingness to sell us all out in order to make climate deals with China. To see how that will work out, look at how kowtowing to Iran has blown up the Middle East.
I don’t miss the Orange Man, but I sure miss the peace and prosperity we had when he was in office. Can we get Trumpism without Trump?
We have the same problem in Canada. We are about 2% of global emissions and our idiot prime minister (who is basically a CCP/WEF puppet) is happily destroying our economy to signal his incredible virtue to the world.
He’s an actor by profession. Role-playing is what they do, the only thing they can do. It doesn’t really matter to him how silly he looks.
(2) Justin Trudeau Bhangra Dance in India | Full Video – YouTube
A student contestant on a recent TV game show told the presenter that he wanted to be an actor or a politician. The presenter questioned the difference between two professions and the contestant replied that they were much the same.
“Can we get Trumpism without Trump?”
When Trump gets elected, don’t read or watch anything put out by radical leftists and then you won’t know about any Trumpism that might have occurred and you can go about enjoying your life in a thriving economy, free from fear of dictators and insane people pushing Net Zero.
DeSantis
“However, carbon sinks such as increased vegetation growth could also absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide leading to a cooling of global temperatures before net zero is achieved. ”
It seems that no one is disagreeing with the fact that CO2 fertilization is greening the planet. All other things being equal, two plots of land–one with vegetation and one without–the one with vegetation is darker. Darker would reduce the associated albedo. That would tend to increase global temperatures vice decrease them. Of course, you would have to believe that global temperatures are a reality.
Sponsor a phytoplankton today.
I don’t know any personally. Maybe you could provide introductions.
When this 1.5C nonsense first raised it’s silly head, it was 2.0C nonsense.
The original claim was also that if we got above 2.0C over 1850 (which was during the Little Ice Age) we would be getting to temperatures that were warmer than the Medieval Warm Period and would hence be unknown territory.
When the story changed from unknown territory to certain doom, I don’t know.
Anyways, a short time after it first appeared, it became obvious that the world was never going to reach the 2.0C threshold, so the doomsday threshold was dropped to 1.5C.
Still no evidence that anything bad is going to happen if we reach that mark.
BTW, most estimates of the Holocene Optimum put it as much as 3 to 5C above the depths of the LIttle Ice Age. They call the period an optimum, because life flourished during it.
But I thought our current crop of alarmists say that 1.5C isn’t a thing. Now I’m confused (or they are).
They realise that it is just a MADE-UP number… pertaining to absolutely nothing.
Anyway, the time resolution of pre-industrial temperature proxies is maybe 50 year time steps, at best.
Comparing single day or single year urban adjusted instrumental temperatures to a 50 year average is just more anti-science.
If the global temperature keeps cheeping up and “nothing untoward” continues to happen… they will walk back and pretend the 1.5C limit never existed.
“. . . keeps cheeping up . . . .”
I think you meant “creeping up,” but “cheeping up” sounds good too.
oops.. another typo… ! No wonder I quitr trying to learn how to play the piano.
A little detail. The 2C was made up by Schellnhuber at PIK. He admitted it. Thought it made a nice ‘target’ when AR4 had ECS at 3. But then the EBM observational ECS studies came out at about 1.7, meaning 2.0 woild not be reached. aR5 refused to give an ECS estimate because of the discrepancy. It was then that the target was dropped to 1.5C so there would still be a climate emergency. This new ‘paper’ just underscores that made up emergency just in time for COP28.
And those estimates are averages over many hundreds of years due to the poor resolution of temperature proxies.
I see bnice2000 has already made that point.
“The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature increases…..” On the contrary. The Agreement aims to extort as much money as possible from those who earned it and redistribute it to those who didn’t.
It is possible that the climate will continue warming due to effects such as melting ice
I may be ignorant but when ice melts it absorbs heat. That’s why there are ice cubes in your whiskey-coke. As they melt, the drink remains just a little above 32F. Thus any ice on the planet absorbs heat as the phase change to water takes place. Melting of the Antarctic ice cap would absorb billions of calories of heat. On the other hand, the freezing of the oceans releases heat.
The term “due to the effects such as melting ice” implies that melting ice warms the climate when in fact the opposite is the case.
Speaking of melting ice.
Watching the Antarctic sea ice level getting closer and closer to normal (20 year) levels, (for day of the year)
Whatever caused the dip this year seems to have dissipated and the summer melt is happening a lot slower than usual.
And the Arctic Ice Cap will disappear and our children will never know snow. Yeah.
Wot! No Friederike Otto and her magic attribution crystal ball?
Imperial has become a joke – like academia in general; politicised, woke and intellectually broke.
They need to pace themselves on all their carping on climate. People might just tune them out, and then where would they be? Therefore, I believe that a “Carping Budget” is in order.
Lighten up, Francis (a.k.a., the global warming crowd). A 1.5C increase in temps is not the end of the world. It’s not even the beginning of the end of the world. It’s a non-event. So is a 3.0 C increase in temps. Lighten up, Francis.
My question is this: Do these people keep a straight face while publishing this?
They probably do until they get paid. Then they laugh all the way to the bank.
“Every fraction of a degree of warming will make life harder for people and ecosystems”
Idiot.
LOL
my sentiment exactly.
If people now live in both Equador and Russia, then…
I’m hoping for slightly more than 1.5deg and at least 1000ppm CO2 – the world will be a better place
There was a claim some time ago that if we gathered all the fossil fuels together and burned them all up at one time, that this would raise the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to about 800ppm, double what it is today, but it doesn’t appear going by this calculation, that we could get the amount up to 1,000ppm.
But 800ppm is pretty good. 🙂
What utter nonsense! And to think that somebody is paying these fools to publish such drivel!
My kids need college degrees to join the marketplace. I’m paying.
Meanwhile,
COLD records continue to tumble in the USA.
Low Temperature Records Slain Across U.S., More To Come; Consistently Cold In Vancouver; + Colder-Than-Average October For Antarctica – Electroverse
Oh look, red thumbs HATE facts. !!
So funny !
Updated dataset? How do they update the preindustrial temperature dataset? Improved modeling? Can they prove it’s improved? Increasing whose confidence? Sounds fishy to me- a non scientist.
“Every fraction of a degree of warming will make life harder for people and ecosystems. This study is yet another warning from the scientific community. Now it is up to governments to act.”
Wow, EVERY fraction? Sounds like crying fire in a theater. Let’s see- 1/1,000 is a fraction. How many people will suffer because of it? What ecosystems?
The only “window” they’re worried about closing is the one that allows them to keep their climate scam going.
“Dr Lamboll says these uncertainties further highlight the urgent need to rapidly cut emissions.”
I should think we great uncertainties we shouldn’t doing anything URGENTLY.
A couple notes.
I don’t care what the Imperial College of London says or thinks, I don’t care what Drs. Lamboll or Rogelj think or say, I don’t care what the UN IPCC thinks or says. In other words all of these guys can take a hike.
The carbon budget is nonsense, a 1.5C increase is nonsense, a 2.0C increase is nonsense, the notion that a slight increase in temperature is catastrophic is nonsense and the notion that we even know what the average global temperature is is nonsense.
I would ask these CAGW experts what possible good taking their advice would achieve? Up to now we have wasted trillions of dollars listening to them and CO2 emissions haven’t gone down even a tiny bit. Exactly the opposite, CO2 emissions have increased without even a burp. Temperature has pretty much done it’s own thing, it has gone up, it has gone down and it has stayed the same, we have no control over the temperature.
To sum up all these guys can go to hell.
To sum up all these guys can go to hell.
Well if you sense the scam edifice is crumbling and the mob is coming with the tar and feathers naturally you’d want to implement a stay out of jail card-
George Soros ‘fundamentally hates humanity’: Elon Musk (msn.com)
From the link: “”He’s doing things that erode the fabric of civilization. Getting DAs elected that refuse to prosecute crime—that’s part of the problem in San Francisco and LA.”
Yes, Soros is funding letting domestic criminals out of jail, and is funding foreign criminals to come into the U.S. with his open border policies.
Soros and his ilk are destroying the fabric of American society. And that’s their goal.
Radical leftwing billionaires are a great danger to the freedoms of the rest of us. George Soros is not the only leftwing billionaire funding the destruction of the United States.
I am not sure out which hat they are picking the numbers for this exercise. The climate people state that the sensitivity of the climate to additional CO2 is 3°±1.5° for each doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (I know, but lets just go with it for a few minutes)
Doubling is a logarithmic relationship which we can calculate using on base 2 logarithms.
T1 • Temperature at time no 1. (currently approximately 288K, about 287 in the 19th century))
T2 • Temperature at time no. 2
C1 • CO2 concentration at time no. 1 (19th Century 280 ppm)
C2 • CO2 concentration at time no. 2 (currently 420 ppm)
ECS • Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
Formula:
T2 = T1 + (ECS × (log2 (C2/C1)))
plugging and chugging
T2 = 287 + (3 × (log2 (420/280)))
T2 = 287 + (3 × (log2 (1.5))
T2 = 287 + (3 × (0.585))
T2 = 287 + 1.755
So, we are stuck with going well past 1.5°, or their theory is just plain garbage.
We will see.
P.S. I am taking the under.
However, the problem is that they actually have no evidence that CO2 has any effect worth a damn. Ergo, all their claims about carbon budgets and tipping points are absolute codswallop.
cods·wal·lop /ˈkädzˌwäləp/
nounINFORMAL•BRITISH
“However, the problem is that they actually have no evidence that CO2 has any effect worth a damn”
Exactly right.
Our leaders are destroying our future based on nothing substantial. There is no evidence that CO2 needs to be reduced, or that increased CO2 will cause harm.
Couple of facts, chaps. There is no chance whatever that the inexorable rise in CO2 shown by the Keeling curve will be checked. As regards the 1.5 degsC scam scare, the error bars on 1850 temperatures make it laughable. It’s only there because Paris 2.0degs wasn’t going to be reached for ages and we needed to be frightened earlier hence IPCC’s drivelling SR1.5 out in time for the Katowice COP held in a snowstorm over a coalfield, even funnier than Dubai?
“Couple of facts, chaps. There is no chance whatever that the inexorable rise in CO2 shown by the Keeling curve will be checked.”
Yes, it’s all over but the crying.
And Dubai – lots of sand over oilfields. Sounds like COPers are FF junkies 🙂
It’s all somewhat ahistorical and implausible chaps-
Former Australian PM Tony Abbott says climate warnings are ‘ahistorical and implausible’ | Tony Abbott | The Guardian
They may be right. I have to close the windows around dinner time, now. This happened last year, too. It must be Climate Change®.
These idiots are so focused on the average temperature anomaly that they completely screwed up and started referring to it as the “hottest temperature ever” label and never bothered to look at maximum temperature measured data which blew them out of the water.
Why would anyone with half a brain, besides Kerry, believe these incompetent buffoons.
First, it was <2C. That was a random, plucked out of the air number to pretend it was ”sciency”. Then when the Paris chin wag was imminent, they arbitrarily discounted with a massive 25% reduction. An even more meaningless figure of <1.5C. was born.
If 2c was significant to begin with, then knocking .5C off would imply they were miles off, and/or only making sh1t up.
Emitting 950 Gigatonnes of CO2 should, according to the paper, make a difference of 0.5°C.
950 Gt emitted is 400 Gt stuck in the atmosphere
With an ECS of 0.71°C (Happer), this should increase the temperature with 0.14°C – not 0.5°C
It was never arguing over their lack of science and the scientific method that would bring them undone. It was always their stupid ignorant prescriptions that would find them out-
Toyota Cuts EV Sales Expectations By 39 Percent As Its Profits Soar Thanks To Hybrids (msn.com)
Big lithium batteries and their onshore/offshore windmills and solar panels were never gunna cut it. That’s beginning to show everywhere and no amount of helicopter money printing can fix it.
Is this the same Imperial College with those wonderful large numbers of covid deaths we could expect when covid appeared? 44 months later we have not even reached half the number predicted.
Imperious College is at it again. Once more they know more than the rest of us. Like they knew about Covid
Well it seems that the study is based on outdated and wrong data!
That RS15 uses CMIP5 models and heavily relies on RCP8.5 scenarios.
The use of any of which is an elementary mistake for a 2023 publication.
One cannot help but wonder how this ever passed peer review
You just need to find the right reviewers.
Pre-industrial was the Little Ice Age. Why does the IPCC want to keep the Earth cold when around 4.6 million people die from cold-related causes every year compared with around 500,000 dying from heat-related causes?
Why do they want this? Maybe they don’t even know this.
When a person breathes in cold or cool air their capillaries get thinner to preserve body heat and this raises blood pressure causing more heart attacks and strokes
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Despite the fact that there may be some peoples that dont want to be a little warmer in winter I see that the Mauna Loa curve is not yet showing the route to salvation
Same specious message.
Same irrational claims without proof.
Same ridiculous pseudo mechanism of CO₂ warming.
Same bizarre conclusion, confirmation bias based logic.
Just another alarmist fit like the hundreds of bogus doom predictions preceding this latest fear alarmisms.
The [people pushing the emissions reduction are mindlessly ignoring no atmospheric benefit from all of the CO2 emissions reductions during the COVID lockdown.
The entirety of all emission reduction policies cannot come close the massive lockdown that netted zero atmospheric reduction.